We may not have the legacy media bully pulpit or the eager help of major ad agencies, but we People of the Gun — AKA, the “gun lobby” — can play the playbook game, too. Here’s my quick take on a conversation guide for freedom-minded defenders of our nation’s most maligned civil right.

First, a few do’s and don’ts to help you avoid stepping in the language traps that the progressive spin-doctors have set for us.

If you want to really drive these points home, cognitive dissonance is your best friend. Familiarize yourself with this list of dissonance-inducing questions, which I’ve adapted from Alan Korwin’s guide to the political war of words in which we find ourselves.

These questions cut right through the crap and expose the flawed assumptions behind anti-gun arguments.

If these common-sense restrictions make sense for the Second Amendment, would they also make sense for the First Amendment?

Are criminals going to obey this particular law? How will you make them?

Should it be against the law to defend yourself?

What about your children? Wouldn’t you want to defend them?

Shouldn’t we disarm the criminals first?

Why are you blaming peaceful gun owners for getting their property stolen? Would you blame a woman for providing sex to a rapist?

Why don’t they arrest people who lie about their criminal past and fail background checks?

Are you comfortable with the fact that nobody knows who is on the terrorist watch list or how to get off it if you’re innocent?

If “assault weapons” are only good for indiscriminately spraying bullets at people, why do we trust police with them?

If you don’t want to disarm the police and the military, you’re not really against guns at all — you’re only against MY gun. Why is that?

If you’re okay with police and the military having guns, then you understand that guns are necessary. You just want someone else to hold a gun for you. Why is that?

The key here is to let them answer. Actually, make them answer. Watch their certainties crumble as they try to explain why nonsense isn’t actually nonsense.

One last thing to remember: internet arguing is largely a spectator sport. You probably won’t get anyone to admit that they’re wrong, but you don’t have to. The fence-sitters and information seekers who are watching are your ultimate audience. Every solid, civil argument we make builds our credibility.

If you’re the smart one, if you ask penetrating questions, avoid language traps, ad hominems, and stay civil while your opponent splutters and slings insults, you win. So let’s go out there and win.

you make a excellent point. It is FAR easier for us to learn to speak liberalese than to try and learn them our lingo. Examples: Shoulder thing that goes up, clipazine, assualt clips, .9mm, the list goes on and on…..

personal fav, one of the Colorado nitwits that got recalled insisted that once the clips were fired, they were used up and would be out of public circulation.

Why do you think it’s nonsense? I think this is pretty smart. Remember, this is just about how to engage with anti 2a people who are already soft on logic regarding the topic and they are going to argue from an emotional point of view only. Using their own mindset against them methodically like this makes sense.

He’s not saying here that the second amendment is not important in any way. He’s just making the point that the emotional anti 2a robot really doesn’t care what we have to say about the amendment at all; but there are things they do care about and getting through to them will only occur on these levels.

:/ do you expect us to tell you what to think? Read both sides, compare to your life experience, think for yourself, then, you’ll be in a position to actually _BE_ smart, not just sound like Von Zipper 😀

Minor rare incidents such as the attacks in germany or france don’t compare to the 100’s of 1000’s of mass shootings that happen everyday on a daily basis in the united states.

“Pro-gun” groups here like to intentionally ignore the fact that mass shootings and gun deaths are on the rise and censoring opposing points and editing posts to make it like the other side is wrong.

Most of the so called “pro-gun” facts are awash with debunked statistics, paranoia, hate disguised as fact when it is not.

Pro-gun states are even known to have higher incidents of murders, crime and suicide that states with strict laws.

Pro-gun states are even known to fudge their crime stats to make it seem they’re safe when they’re not.

It’s even been found that most guns that were smuggled by criminals into strict gun control foreign countries were traced back to the US by foreign police agencies. It was even found the recent firearm in the germany attack was traced from a gun store in the US.

America is not really free or safe if it is under the constant oppressive thumb of the gun lobby.

Tits or GTFO. Since you just seem to be spewing unsubstantiated claims. Just to add something to your accusation of states cooking the books on crime, Britain is guilty of this, and their cooked numbers are still the highest in Europe.

“100’s of 1000’s of mass shootings that happen everyday on a daily basis in the united states”

You have less than zero credibility because of this one statement alone. You might actually have a good point later on in your comment, but nobody will see it or give it any thought once you throw out this nonsense.

That ridiculous statement of his (“the 100’s of 1000’s of mass shootings that happen everyday on a daily basis in the united states.”) made me laugh.

Illogical Liberal Trolls are hilarious when you don’t engage them – they just have fits of explosive verbal diarrhea.

Their false claims of debunking solid facts are particularly entertaining. Typically they point people to the likes of Politifact – who in the latest Wikileaks release of the DNC emails, shows that they are far from unbiased, but hand in hand with progressive propagandists.

Minor rare incidents such as the attacks in germany or france don’t compare to the 100’s of 1000’s of mass shootings that happen everyday on a daily basis in the united states.

Did you actually read the shit you shoveled before hitting post? (Are you capable of doing so, or are you just some subliterate cut-and-pasting what some puke pays you to post?) Hundreds of thousands of mass shootings every day? We’d long since have been depopulated with a death rate like that–THEREFORE, your so-called “fact” must be wrong.

Take contents and knead until soft, wrap contents in a long annoying spiel of mindless windbaggery and fry until golden brown.

A bunch of fact’s that have no basis in reality.

Since when do facts have no basis in reality. Epic logical fail.

Again, Like my previous posts, “DGU” is a debunked MYTH!

TTAG hosts an article about a DGU everyday. Even anti-gun organizations put them in the tens of thousands which exceed the 32,000 firearm deaths per year. A net positive for americans.

Minor rare incidents such as the attacks in germany or france don’t compare to the 100’s of 1000’s of mass shootings that happen everyday on a daily basis in the united states.

Continued copy-paste nonsense. 1000 mass shootings a day? Absolutely comical. Where do you come up with this stuff?

“Pro-gun” groups here like to intentionally ignore the fact that mass shootings and gun deaths are on the rise and censoring opposing points and editing posts to make it like the other side is wrong.

Yea that’s not happening. You made it up. Come on.

Most of the so called “pro-gun” facts are awash with debunked statistics, paranoia, hate disguised as fact when it is not.

Most of the gun control advocates “facts” are awash with debunked statistics, paranoia, hate disguised as fact when it is not.

Pro-gun states are even known to have higher incidents of murders, crime and suicide that states with strict laws.

Chicago has the highest total number of homicides (with guns) than any other city. They also just so happen to be a gun control haven. Whereas vermont has virtually no gun control laws whatsoever and have the lowest crime rate of any state. Guns aren’t the problem.

Pro-gun states are even known to fudge their crime stats to make it seem they’re safe when they’re not.

Pro-gun states don’t fudge crime stats. You copied and pasted this entire list of talking points from another article. You are just a spammer now.

It’s even been found that most guns that were smuggled by criminals into strict gun control foreign countries were traced back to the US by foreign police agencies. It was even found the recent firearm in the germany attack was traced from a gun store in the US.

Well. Most guns are made in the US. The US makes more firearms than any other country. I would guess that logically this would be true. Maybe that gun smuggling was part of Obama’s “fast and furious” plan?

America is not really free or safe if it is under the constant oppressive thumb of the gun lobby.

By “oppressive” you mean millions of gun owners and voters supporting candidates that support gun rights and use of the democratic system of electing officials? Right?

His second to last point irks me the most because it’s a manipulation of facts to skew the argument.

The same claim was made about guns “traced” in Mexico. Here’s what he’s not telling you: most guns in Mexico (and most other country in the world) are found to be “untraceable”. They are then used as evidence if necessary and destroyed.

There are however certain circumstances where there is reason to believe that the gun came from the United States. When this occurs law enforcement in the foreign country contacts the ATF which initiates a trace. Countries are pretty good about isolating guns that may have come from the US because of the unique ways US manufactured and imported weapons are labeled (as compared to those meant for use elsewhere in the world). When you fink a Krink style rifle at a shooting in Paris and it’s stamped “C.A.I. Georgia VT” you have a pretty damn good idea that it came from the US because it was legally imported to the US and stamped here. (C.A.I. did import the M92 found in Paris btw) Similarly each country in Europe has it’s own legally prescribed method for numbering a gun so an HK USP meant for German or French use will have a SN different from one meant for export to the US.

When the ATF is asked to initiate a trace they very often find it came from the US for the obvious reasons listed above (they’re usually not asked to trace a gun that didn’t come from the US). In the case of F&F 92% of the weapons the Federales requested traces on came up as being of US origin. However, the number of guns a trace was requested on was, IIRC, something like 12% of the total they recovered from crime scenes and raids.

So yes, the ATF traced the gun back to the US 92% of the times in which they were asked to trace a weapon but the number of times it was requested was only a small portion of the guns actually recovered. In something like 88% of cases the Mexicans didn’t even ask because they already knew it didn’t come from the US.

Exactly, when Mexico asked for a US trace, it’s because the firearm was already determine to have originated in the United States, and still had serial numbers for tracing.
That 100% don’t trace is because sometimes the Mexican authorities make a mistake and the firearm wasn’t produced in the United States.

And on top of that – who cares? A gun in a foreign country is that country’s problem or blessing. Unless they are going to ship it back to the US for sale to gun owners who would love to have it, it has nothing to do with us.

Debunked by who? Apparently not by an Obama commissioned study by the CDC, which concluded that use of firearms for self-defense is an ‘Important Crime Deterrent’, and reduces risk of injury.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

Generally speaking, when people post something has been ‘debunked’, very often it has not been. It is an effective troll catchword, meant to mislead people who skim through information without giving it much, if any, critical thought.

Are you referring to the Nice truck attack? Because if so, that seems to severely undermine your entire argument. I mean, if 84 dead and 300+ wounded is a “minor” incident, when was the last time we even had a non-“minor” incident in the US? Have we had any, by this definition, since 09/11?

Even FBI’s loose definition of mass shootings (4 or more people killed, not including the perpetrator) would in your absurd statistics’ low end of 100/day result in a minimum of 146,000 people killed annually. But FBI tells us that the number killed using firearms every year, not including suicides (which are not likely to be mass shootings, are they?) is about 11,000. Even if all of them were the exact 4 killed per shooting, we would be talking 7.5 daily, not 100’s or 1000’s daily as you state in your overwrought flame post.
Now what is the rate, even if we assume that these murders happen evenly across the country, which is nonsense, then in a country of 320 million, that’s a rate of 3.4 per 100,000. Now given that America is not uniform and that the vast majority of murders happen in only a few inner cities (Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Washington DC, and a few others) and on the border cities and towns facing Mexico, then the rest of America, has about the same rate as the most non-violent parts of Europe and Japan.

I prefer to look at it as: the fact that I still have to fight traffic on the way to work demonstrates that enough people are alive that this man’s statistic can’t be right–no need to look it up; it’s just fricking wrong.

Hundreds of thousands of mass shootings in the US everyday, huh? Even Mother Jones couldn’t come up with 100 mass shootings in the last 34 years. I would love to see you cite you bullshit at some point.

Here’s a few little somethings you might want to take to heart:
The “gun lobby” is me, being an NRA Life Member.
No one had to sell me on firearms: I suck at melee weapon-based and unarmed martial arts.
Firearms are my choice to possess, just as it’s my choice to marry whatever gender I choose and prepare my home and hearth to defend that choice, should it be necessary.
I’m pretty sure there are enough Americans like-minded; there must be as there are supposed to be over 300 million firearms in America. Why is any of this so offensive to you?

Mankind does not posses the mathematical capability to calculate how comprehensively moronic your arguments are – was this an attempt to utilize every form of fallacious reasoning in one comment? If so, congratulations – you got close.

And this is exactly why I no longer bother with arguments such as those in this article. For several years now my response to anti gunners is “F*** you. Come and take them.” And “If you try to take our guns we will shoot you.”

“A bunch of fact’s that have no basis in reality”, says conceredamerican..Facts are the only thing that do apply to reality. I wish fantasy applied, that would be enjoyable. Disregarding facts because you want reality to be different, lol nice. You should talk to a professional about that. I bet you’ve had a few “relationships” that the other person had to get a restraining order against you for.

Exactly. Words Matter. That’s why our universities, which are in a protected industry dealing in the business of “Re-education” are re-defining words. And the concepts associated with them. For example, they are now convincing our children to believe that The First Amendment needs to be overhauled. That would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago. Radical students were around in the 60s, but they never claimed they had the moral right to shut down free speech in a university, where the opposite should occur. They are re-defining things like ‘socialism’. ‘illegal alien’ and ‘justice’, using qualifiers like ‘re-distribution of wealth’, ‘undocumented immigrants’ and ‘racial profiling’.
Note how, in the past couple of years, the Progressives have shifted from using the term “Assault Rifle” to “Assault Weapon”. Their next push will not be to ban AR-15s, but all semi-automatic weapons. Their mid-step will qualify/define an ‘assault weapon’ as having the ability to accept any magazine with a capacity of 10+.

I have to think that anyone with more than two brain cells, who proofread what someone else had fed him to post would realize how ridiculous that hundreds of thousands of mass shootings stat was. That number is much greater than the total number of mass shooting victims over the history of the US, much less the number of mass shooting incidents we’ve had total, much less the number we’ve had in one day.

Mommy probably doesn’t realize she’s raising flatworms in her basement. The bigger mystery is how they got internet access.

Ever since Mikey B Numbers stopped trolling, TTAG does seem to attact lower quality trolls.
Perhaps we should set up a bridge and check underneath from time to time?

Although, it is interesting to note that once again, a pro-gun site allows an anti-‘s comment to stand, whereas sites advocating to remove gun-rights often will silence opposing views.
I’m glad that TTAG only censors for vulgar language, personal attacks, and not on the basis of ideas

Last 2 points are right on-
“If you don’t want to disarm the police and the military, you’re not really against guns at all — you’re only against MY gun. Why is that?”
“If you’re okay with police and the military having guns, then you understand that guns are necessary. You just want someone else to hold a gun for you. Why is that?”
Whoever controls the language of the conversation wins the conversation….unless of course you’re being attacked by multi-billion dollar private interests which have a vested interest and have the ability to drown internet forums with fake posts, however inaccurate, to push their agenda.

Tactic #1: Pick your audience. Don’t “debate” one who refuses all your arguments no matter how sound.
Tactic #2: Pick your audience. Don’t “debate” in front of everyone. Progressives seem to have nothing better to do than lurk on social media and forums and pile on, emboldened by numbers.

I have pulled out plenty of data, and the other side always pulls a No True Scotsman or an anti-appeal from authority. “500K DGUs a year.” “Says who?” “CDC.” “Hmm… Aha! Gary Kleck! Mother Jones says he’s been discredited.” And so on. Their goal is to win, not have true discourse. So, IMO, it’s best to take the conversation with a fence-sitter offline and answer him or her one-to-one, by private message, which has led to:

They anti’s argue/debate from rhetoric and appeal mostly to people of similar mental leaning. We attempt to debate based on dialectic. We fail to convince them and they claim victory.

This article is about switching our tactic from dialect to rhetoric. That does not imply dialectic is wrong or inferior. It’s just that to cut through their layers of BS constructed blinders, we have to speak a language they understand.

I use a technique they taught me in sales school. The person who controls the questions controls the conversation. When some moron says something stupid, respond with a question.

Moron: We should ban assault weapons!
Me: What’s an assault weapon?

Moron: We have an epidemic of gun violence!
Me: How many violent crimes per year do we have, compared to, say, 1991?

Moron: Those assault weapons are useless for hunting!
Me: Do you actually know any hunters? Have you ever searched Google images for “AR-15 hunting?”

Moron: Those assault weapons are only good for mass murder!
Me: What ammunition is an “assault weapon” typically chambered for? How does its killing power compare to, say, the .30-06 cartridge that is widely used for hunting?

I took it as suggesting we use logic, but in a pithy way, rather than going “wonk” on them and spewing a bunch of statistics. Ask them questions that make the logical outcome of their stated position look silly, by making it clear to them.

Moron: Those assault weapons are only good for mass murder!
Reply: So why do all the bans explicitly reserve them for law enforcement? Do the police have a need for weapons of mass murder?

This has always irked me about “assault weapons” bans, but now that the same kind of people who have always been anti-gun are railing against “police murder shootings”, I’m very interested to know how it makes sense to outlaw ownership and access to a weapon good only for mass murder, except for people who you believe are racist murderers.

Well, sometimes I just like to go simple and low effort. Like this morning, walking through a train station in Philly, I saw a pack of MDA tools handing out fliers and accosting people. I didn’t engage them in debate, but I did walk straight through their pack and generously crop-dust them.

This is a “Training Troll”. The nonsense it is spouting is what we will be hearing from the Jabba the Hitlliary presidential campaign every day until the election. The propaganda will be repeated by the news media ad nauseum.
The endlessly repeated “Big Lie” will be their only tactic. Shannon’s Sugar Daddy is at their convention right now, showing them how it is done.

They will have to be countered at every opportunity. So go ahead, take a pot-shot at the troll, you know you want to.

Sometimes spin is the only language they understand. I don’t see anything wrong with using their strategies against them. Moral ambiguity is further diminished by the fact that we are centering it around truth instead of lies.

But I do understand the qualms.

For the record, SJWs at jest are in favor out restricting the first also. Many believe the constitution as a whole is outdated, which may be the resolution of cognitive dissonance as they cling to anti gun-ness.

Nice post. Now we have a template to develop our case. I have been pointing out for months that politically, POTG rely completely, and fruitlessly, on logic, facts, statistics, and being “right” about the law. Logic, facts, statistics, and being “right” about the law did nothing for gun owners in California and Massachusetts.

Pro-gun supporters need an emotional argument that hits anti-gun people right where they live. To date, POTG have not had a coherent theme addressing people who believe nothing but what they feel.

Not saying the template provided is complete, but it does create starting points. For those who want something after the anti-gun person says “Facts are nice, but I just don’t like guns for anyone other than police”, the template can be used to restart the conversation. Glad to have the ideas listed in the template. YMMV (?)

For any gun owner who utterly dismisses “feelings” of anti-gun supporters, I guess it would save time to ignore “feelings”, and end the conversation at, “I just don’t like guns”.

What did you change on your web site? Something happened between 7/23/2016 and today where now I can’t clip your articles to EverNote. I only get the comments and not the article. Dang. This site just keeps getting worse.

You know you’re on the correct path when the haters, trolls, and fools come out to attack you in these kinds of numbers.
This article is just a simplification of these 25 rules that the trolls follow, in order to make themselves appear to actually possess a funtional brain.http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
I recommend reading these rules enough times to become familar with the way that the internet trolls use them, and how often. If one pays attention, one can see this in action almost constantly. This article is largely just putting them into a: “do this”, but “don’t do this” format.
For example. let us analyze the post of the supposedly concerned amerikan above:
“the constant oppressive thumb of the gun lobby.” and “Most of the so called “pro-gun” facts are awash with debunked statistics, paranoia, hate disguised as fact ” =
disinfo rule 5.”Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.”
“DGU” is a debunked MYTH!” = rule # 20. “False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations”
PLUS, the entire post does this one:
“18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”
I include this one in its entirety, because it shows how it is an error to go all emotional when talking with an anti, as recommended by the article itself. They are ready for that. Emotion can be a useful tool, BUT, for best effect it must be used with long term subliminal reinforcement programming, as the anti gun forces do. Not having ownership of the mass media as they do, that is a losing strategy for us.
Better to use emotion as a wedge, to attempt to break down their subliminal programming. Like the example; “Don’t you want to protect your children?” It’s always best to ask questions, rather than make statements. That forces the listener to enter cognititive mode(thinking), which will tend to break them out of their amygdala’s(the lizard brain… yes, all fauna have them, even the birds) “fight or flight” modes, which is all it understands, other than eating and mating. Lizards do little else but these four things. Mental conditioning works on the emotions, so if the higher thought processes can be brought on line, then the conditioning loses its hold on its victim.

My advice? Be honest. If abstract facts, hard data, and rational arguments don’t work, use a range trip. Direct experience is a great teacher.

Never let yourself think you’re going to Jedi-mind-trick people over to your point of view. The anti-gun lobby is premised on this tactic, believing the poor rubes are just to dumb to think for themselves and any manipulation or deception is justified in order to ensure their opinions are “properly” formed. I used to support gun control myself. What brought me around is that I noticed I was being lied to and manipulated. Clearly, someone who lies to you and wants you disarmed cannot have your best interests at heart. At best they see you as an enemy, at worst as a mark or even a slave.

Always glad to have a new, awake and aware, ally!
And welcome! This side of the debate is largely focused on help, advice, reason, and logic. The other side are the ones who use hate, bias, race, and censorship to maintain control.
Based on their actions, I cannot think of them as anything other than the ‘dark side’, with a sith lord up there some where(George Soros, perhaps? He certtainly looks the part…).
You might want to read these, to see just how planned and organized those ones who lied to and manipulated you were, and still are…http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/anything-and-everything/8/-25-rules-of-disinformation/20340/
And once again, welcome to a new home. I think you will find this side to be much less bigoted and hateful than the other. Just go to a shooting range or gun club and start asking gun related questions. Most have many people that will be happy to help you with anything you need, even gear and firearms a lot of times.
At every match that I’ve ever been to, if I was missing some piece of gear that was either recommended or required, someone always loaned me what was needed. Every time, without exception. Lots of times it was the other competitors that loaned me stuff.
Helping out your competition! How very unbusinesslike and unprofitable(but what great human beings!) for them!

I appreciate the thought that went into compiling that handy chart, but I do not (ever) debate/discuss guns with anti-gunners. We are both entrenched in our positions, but theirs is one of lies. It is a lesson in futility to attempt to discuss anything with those that will lie to further an agenda.

So you have never changed your mind on an issue? Some people are just spewing what they have heard out of ignorance. You are missing a chance to educate them and be an example of a good citizen.
Now the stupid ones, yeah, don’t bother. At first you may not be able to know the difference. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. I would rather argue with my peers than rely on the courts or politicians to argue on my behalf. That way we can have more voters on our side.

Some here have made the case that “anti-gunners” are not the “audience”. One-on-one, I agree talking to gun-grabbers likely makes no sense. However, if there is a group of listeners, you might just prick the bubble for one or two who have never heard anything other than “guns bad, hobbits good”. Likely you will never find any “uncommitteds” regarding guns, but what the heck.

There is nothing to stop firearms from being illegally brought into a country. As a Canadian I was surprised to find full auto AK47s were being smuggled into BC. I know that one container was caught by customs and the RCMP. My question to that is, “how many have gone through?”

With that in mind lets look at human trafficking. Whether it is people looking for a better or life or for the nefarious sex trafficking. To transport a human illegally requires quite a few things. A human needs sufficient oxygen, food, water, medicine, sanitary (within reason) facilities, and a place to sleep at the lowest cost factor to smuggle people into a country. Thats a lot to consider. A great deal can go wrong. Even more so, those people aren’t 100% controllable. Between desperation and frustration you might see people being smuggled in riot or escape their transporters. Not likely to occur, but a possibility.

Now lets look at firearms. Firearms can be disassembled, hidden in various materials utilizing all sorts of materials to keep them lasting for lifetimes. They’re relatively smaller than a human. Don’t need to eat, sleep, breathe, etc.

So if we can’t stop people (a difficult task on the whole) from being brought into a country (regardless of reason), what makes us think we can stop firearms from being smuggled? I’d wager there is more success made in smuggling firearms than people. Be it one at a time, or by the container load.

I will store this comment because you give some meat to the bone, “You can’t keep criminals from getting guns.” That statement sounds good to pro-gun supporters, but is as vacuous as much of what the grabbers put out. The comparison of gun smuggling to gun smuggling just may the jetty against which gun confiscation crashes and breaks.

Good points. This is a emotional argument for the antis not one based on or interested in factual discussion. The cartoon picture is very appropriate…Anytime I try to discuss facts, rights and statistic they just push that red button. Just driven by hate: call names and avoid the subject. Their politcal actions lately are making it very clear who the bullies, haters, liars and violent people are. Their attacks on other people’s first amendment rights and the whole constitution say a lot about who they are. They are paving the way for a fascist ruler to take control. Fools completely supporting exaxtly what they claim to be against.

The fascist people leading them are in favor due to seeking power and control. Our neighbors who blindly follow and eat up the emotionial blitz are the fools. Those neighbors are the fools we need to enlighten. I try to nudge them to think on their own but maybe play with there emotions like their puppetmasters do is a viable option. I hate sinking that low but if that’s what it has to be, so be it.

“Low” as in playing games with their emotions and capitalizing on their ignorance. But if we don’t sink that low we will eventually fight a real war for freedom again, so just gotta do it. Pride for myself and my morals are secondary to my kids future. So I accept the tactic of my enemy as mine.

??? OK, I’m not gonna convince _YOU_ , but, there are lurkers reading that sheep-dip. First, the Declaration of Independence says we got the _DUTY_ to alter the Government, second, the 9th Amendment says we didn’t lose any rights, third, Abe Lincoln said, “Any People, Anywhere, having the Power, have the Right to create a Government” so, finally, the two things that were both required to create the United States, were, The Declaration of Independence, and, the Minutemen’s .75 caliber “Kentucky Long Rifle” assault weapons. It was _ARMED_ People that ratified the Constitution, conditional on the adding of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment _FORBIDS_ the Government touching the authority that _created_ it, and can, at need, again alter it.